Advice sought.... Buying a house and informed of "breach of convenant" at last minute

Section62

GDB2222 said:

The OP has not said whether buying freehold or leasehold. If freehold, would the right to take action for breaches still be there?  I suppose it must, or no policy would be needed.

Councils have and do impose covenants on freehold property they sell, so notwithstanding any generic issues with enforcement of covenants, I think the assumption has to be that enforcement remains a theoretical possibility.

Furthermore, unlike a commercial developer who packs up and clears out at the end of a development (possibly losing all interest in any form of enforcement), the local council will still exist and will continue to have a keen interest in matters covered by covenants - both as a property owner and as the imposer/enforcer of various rules in the local area.

The OP needs to clarify with their solicitor whether this is a "breach of convenant" as per the thread title, or a failure to obtain planning consent - as assumed by many of the replies in this thread.

If the former is the true situation then those replies might be giving the OP a false sense of security. And given the potential for confusion I personally would want to make absolutely sure the indemnity policy is the correct type for the situation applying here.

AdrianC

user1977 said:

£100 or so. They're normally for the benefit of all future owners/lenders, so in theory you shouldn't need to get a new one anyway unless the amount of cover needs increased.

...which says everything you need to know about the expected likelihood of there ever being a claim...

daws0n_2

Yes, it is a "breach of convenant" (I assumed it was lack of planning consent at first also). My Solicitor doubts that planning permission would be required due to the extension's size.

The property was advertised as freehold and I've asked for clarification on this to be 100% sure. My assumption is that it's a freehold tenure with convenants imposed as Section62 pointed out above.

The house has double in value since previous sale, so perhaps that is why the indemnity policy is a new one?